I called this edition Pigfest on the Roof, and nominally themed it off of Fiddler on the Roof, inviting people to bring a traditional side dish or dessert for the feast. But we did not meet on the roof. Instead, we crammed 21 adults and 7 children into my living room, kitchen, and hallway. I thought about taking pictures this time, but I am simply not that organized!

In the 3 hours we met, the Pigfesters engaged in seven separate debates. Everyone behaved very well, which made moderating rather easier. The topics were interesting and well-engaged.

Because the government is anti-God and immoral, it would be immoral to pay taxes. Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. But what is Caesar’s? To how much was Caesar entitled? When the sitting executive’s face is not on our coin, as it was in Jesus’ day, is it still to be rendered to him? Does our personal judgment determine the justice of a tax? Is the income tax even legal? Is it rather unconstitutional? But the resolution was giving moral reasons for refusing to pay taxes, not legal ones. Must Christians submit to immoral governments? Is doing something morally wrong in the name of submission ok? In the Bible, children were wiped out with their fathers for the sin of the father, but we see no mention of justification because they were just doing what their fathers instructed. Do the layers of responsibility in the government protect us from culpability? That is, by paying taxes, are we not simply enabling the government to make good choices? That they make bad choices is a potential consequence of our trust. But, we are in a democracy where we the people choose our government. Some of our taxes do go to moral things, like roads. It was suggested that we look at the federal budget and deduct from our income tax a corresponding percentage to that which the government spends on immoral activities, and to enclose a letter of explanation. There is a doctrine of Lesser Magistrates, which discusses the conflict between obeying contradicting authorities or whether citizens are required to submit to authorities not established by the higher authority (in this case, the US Constitution). Jesus paid his taxes (the story of the coin in the fish).

Men have no biblical responsibilities towards their families. Paul had to have been married, so it is possible he abandoned his wife for the call of God. (This was highly debated.) If a man does not provide for his own family, he is worse than an infidel – the Bible. A husband is to love his wife as himself, which often includes caring for her needs. At this point, the contributor of the resolution conceded that the Bible did have some responsibilities listed for men towards their families, so the debate shifted to what they are: What is the definition of men? It includes fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers. Brothers were commanded in the Mosaic Law to take their sister-in-laws as wife if they were barren widows (law of the kinsman-redeemer). Lot is an example of a man whom we do not, in our culture, consider to have been a good father. He offered his daughters to the lustful crowd – and what’s up with that? But, was he a jerk, or was he righteous? Scripture is often addressed to fathers, which seems to be significant. Some of the sons of Jacob slaughtered a city to avenge their sister’s rape. Is that a responsibility? God is presented as a Father. Are we not to imitate Him? Does God have any obligations to His children? Obligations (and by implication, responsibilities) have to do with consequences. When God takes an action, he is responsible for the consequences, and thus obligated to abide those consequences… Likewise, a man is obligated to deal with the child he has if his wife conceives. God’s fatherhood is often demonstrated in punishment. But He is also merciful. Are fathers, therefore, required to imitate God’s grace as well as His chastising? Whence comes the impulse to provide and protect? If not from the Bible, and if not from the character of God, then where?

America has gotten worse since the Women’s Liberation movement. Worse was described as moral deterioration: divorce, abortion, crime. And the women’s liberation movement was specified as that movement that rose in the 60’s and focused on equal opportunity, women leaving the home for the workplace, and sexual liberation. Perhaps it is not the actual liberating of women that caused the moral decline, but the attitude women took. Are we talking about a cause of moral decline, or is the women’s liberation movement yet another symptom of a larger rebellion. It was a rebellion against God. “We hate men” was not the origin of the movement, but rather, World War II empowered women when men were unable to work the factories and women left the home to take up those responsibilities. Or perhaps women’s lib. started with suffrage. Are not all created equal, even male and female? Does that not apply to roles? The real wickedness of the feminist mindset is not, “We hate men,” but “We hate God.” For they are rebelling against God’s created order. Perhaps women, though, were not the instigators. Maybe men abusing their authority, really oppressing them (for example, physical violence) caused women to assert themselves. What does this subject matter today? Abortion is going on today, and is horribly unjust to fathers. They have no legal right to stay the murder of their own child. A result of the women’s liberation movement is that men were not allowed to be men, and so have abdicated their roles. But shouldn’t men have stood up against the women’s liberation movement and defended the God-given order? Those who did were slandered. Really, emasculation is a result of the Fall and the Curse, when God told Eve that her desire would be for her husband, it is the terminology of desiring to be “over” her husband, just like sin “got the better of” Cain. Women today do appreciate their liberties, without wicked motives, and make good use of them (women doing missions without their families). The Christian worldview has been proclaimed as the kindest to women. Are we kind to women to fight for equality in the area of sexual promiscuity? Should we not have fought for equality the other way, of neither men’s nor women’s promiscuity being acceptable? Even though we may disagree with the movement, we can use the women’s liberties today for good: a woman who doesn’t believe women should have the vote can choose to submit her vote to her husband’s views. The movement is continuing even today, but is evolving, and so is not necessarily from the same motives as the feminists had in the 60’s.

Sharing is unnecessary and not biblically supported. Sharing is defined as co-ownership, especially as opposed to lending. The distinction between (and comparative value of) giving and sharing was a theme throughout the debate. Are we saying that taking turns is unnecessary? When a child’s friend comes over to play, what is the host child to do? Should he keep his toys to himself? Or – perhaps he should truly give the toy, not expecting it back. Sharing is looking out for other’s interests, putting others ahead of yourself. [Ownership] rights are unbiblical. We put so much emphasis on our rights, but God calls us to give up our rights. Christians are told to love our neighbors as ourselves. Is there a difference morally between offering to share with someone else, and requesting that someone else share with you? Sharing may be unnecessary when giving is an option. But to whom are we to give? How much? Sharing makes life better and more efficient. Instead of buying a toy for each child in a family, they can share one toy. Sometimes there is no money to buy for each individual what they need, but they can have what they need if they all share one. How is hospitality done if not by sharing? God owns everything anyway; none of this property is really ours. God made us stewards, and we are to exercise wisdom and discernment in how best to use what He has entrusted to us.

God withholds because we do not ask. If we are obedient to God, then we abide in God’s love, and God does what we ask. When we walk with God, He gives us the desires of our hearts. The Bible encourages us to entreat God – even to the point of nagging Him. How does God’s sovereignty fit into the equation? Is God really dependent on our actions? God gives some good gifts without prayer (common grace: rain falls on just and unjust; and special grace to Christians, but without us asking). When the Spirit intercedes for our weakness, what if our weakness is that we don’t ask for the right things? Can He bridge that gap? Generally that verse is not interpreted as praying for us when we are not praying, but interceding for us as we pray. God changes His mind when people act or plead with Him. Either God lies or He changes His mind, for he told Moses that He would destroy Israel, and then God didn’t. If our children acted that way, we would punish them… It seems best to act as though what we do and pray matters, regardless of what we believe about the sovereignty of God. Daniel knew God’s prophecy that He would do something at a certain time, but Daniel still prayed for it to happen. Is God’s plan allowed to be malleable? If not for that, could we have this redemption story: God creates the world perfect, but man sins, so God gets to demonstrate His lovingkindness by sending His only Son to die for us. Or did God plan it that way all along? Isn’t consistency an attribute of God? Maybe God must only be consistent within His character (for example, mercy).

Ownership for the sake of hospitality is the best kind of stuff and the best kind of ownership. Best is defined as optimal, in the short term and/or in the long term. People are not equivalent to “stuff.” The other reason to have a lot of stuff is to be like a dragon, hoarding riches and laying on them because they bring pleasure to you individually. Are families included in hospitality? If you own something for the purpose of benefiting others who are in your family, is that still the best kind? There is this trend toward larger and larger master bedrooms, which serves no hospitable purpose, but often detracts from available space for hospitality towards others. Hospitality, though, is an attitude, and can be demonstrated without stuff. Should we buy a lot of stuff to be hugely hospitable? There is a difference between purchasing stuff for the sake of hospitality and making hospitable use of stuff bought for other reasons. This resolution did not address the inherent value of the property in question (ought we to be hospitable with our Play Station?), but rather, with the motive in possessing it. Hospitality enables relationships. Maybe a better kind of ownership would be for God’s call: some people need their own space to refresh in order to do what God has called them to do. If it is impossible to share without making yourself useless, hospitality might not be the most important thing. We should be willing to give up property when God wants us to do something else.

Intimate friendships with the same sex is just as important for men as for women. Intimacy was defined as vulnerability especially in the senses of accountability and sharing emotions. Men see the world differently: things versus relationships. Guys do have as intimate of relationships, but do not express them the same way as girls. Spending the day hunting and sharing a one-sentence commentary on their job (men) can be as intimate as a three hour conversation (women). But the argument of the resolution is that men need to express more – a lot of times, and not in a way that looks like women. Take, for example, David and Jonathan, who had a much closer relationship than what is common to men in our culture. Men are afraid to reveal themselves, especially for accountability. There is also a difficulty in expressing masculine intimacy for fear of seeming “queer*.” Are women really good examples of intimate friendships, or rather than holding each other accountable, aren’t we gossiping and discussing things that shouldn’t be said? Many men experience closer friendships with other men before marriage, and miss those relationships afterwards, but have been unable or have neglected to keep them up. Men have been influenced by the doctrine of individualism, so that they overvalue doing things on their own and not asking for help. The hard world necessitates a shell especially for men, who are in the world more than women. Men don’t have time for relationships. World War II hurt the willingness of men to be open, because they did not want to talk about the horrors they had witnessed or even committed. Were male relationships more prominent in the past or in other cultures? *queer in the sense of homosexual

Each 15-minute segment seemed to go too fast and be over too soon. The incredible value of Pigfests it that they do not allow you to really complete a topic, or all the aspects brought up in the debate. So we keep thinking and talking (and writing!) for weeks to come. I think it is interesting how there are often two themes weaving their way through the debate. At some points there were up to four people with their hands up waiting to speak, so the different threads were carried on well. For myself, I had prepared a resolution, but the things I wanted to bring up with it were touched on in so many of the other debates that I decided not to present mine for debate.

All in all I am quite pleased with how the night went. God answered all of my prayers for the party. As hostess and moderator and human being I felt more focused than I have at some Pigfests, and for that I also thank God.

I’m in between churches right now – between congregations. All summer and fall I’ve been casually attending the meetings of various friends. I can’t tell you how wonderful it feels to not be obligated to make an appearance at any one building on a Sunday morning. I might tell a friend I’m coming, or I might decide Saturday night. Some Sundays I sleep in. Sunday morning heathenism is rather refreshing.

Except it isn’t heathenism. A lot of what happens in those buildings on Sunday mornings is of heathen origin. But heathenism is a lot more than skipping a sermon and praise concert. It is a lifestyle of rejecting God, and that I certainly have not done.

I believe the Bible teaches Christians to gather regularly with each other. That isn’t something I have abandoned either. My recent experience is filled with times of fellowship and encouragement with other believers. We do ministry together, hold each other accountable for our walks with God, philosophically tackle the dilemmas we’re facing, study the Bible, and pray. During these times we also tend to eat, to play games, to laugh and tease, sometimes to work. Kids running around get swept up by disciples of Jesus, who – like Him – love children.

About a month ago some friends invited me to their church. I went that weekend. This week they asked me what I thought, and didn’t I like it (since I hadn’t been back). And I froze, because, well, I did like it. The people were friendly and the teachings were biblical and stimulating. But I don’t think I’ll join. This Sunday I did go back there, though. And my friends’ thirteen-year-old son confronted me, “I thought you said our church was just ‘ok’.”

Hard to explain. This particular church is on the good end of mainstream churches. They have good doctrine. A lot of their money goes to missions. Kids are with parents in church for most of the time, and youth aren’t separated from their families. The music isn’t too loud or too self-centered. With a congregation of about 50, the pastor and teachers can know everyone.

After pondering for a day or so, here is my answer to the thirteen-year-old friend: (it’s alliterative so I can remember!)
1) Plurality. There is only one pastor at the church. He’s the head man. I believe Jesus is the head of the Church, and that leadership beneath Him must be shared among more than one equal. Whenever real life cases are discussed in the New Testament, the word is used in the plural. (Elders) In this way they can model cooperation and problem solving. Congregations and pastors are kept mindful that Christ is the true head, and that the Church is His project. Also, when one is weak, there is another to be strong, the proverbial man to pick you up when you fall. Two are better than one and a cord of three strands is not easily broken. Pastoring is a lonely job, being at the top instead of a part of your congregation as friends and brothers. My Bible describes a different sort of dynamic, where pastors are respected for being respectable and where everyone is exercising his gifts for the good of all: pastors, prophets, discerners, helpers, administrators, on and on.
2) Property. This was quite confusing to my friend, who expects people to scorn his church for meeting in the club house of a condominium complex. Whether you own a building, rent it, or have borrowed money from a bank to claim that you own it, all represent instances where the Church of God has used resources God entrusted to them not to do what He has instructed: caring for the poor, widows, orphans, and missionaries – but to have a separate place to meet. I believe churches are meant to be gathered in homes. Limited in size, surrounded by hospitality and everyday life, the atmosphere of house church encourages the participation of everyone, the familial fellowship of believers, and the synthesis of sacred and secular.
3) Preaching. The New Testament describes and even commends preaching. Except almost always the lecture style sermon was delivered to an unsaved audience. It is a tool of evangelism. And evangelism is not the purpose of the regular gathering of believers. In fact, the church meetings described in 1 Corinthians are much more open and unstructured than what we usually think of as church. No one was scheduled to speak. Anyone (any man?) was allowed to bring a word, be it a prophecy, a teaching, a tongue – as long as he spoke it for the edification of the group. He may share a testimony of God’s work or an instruction or challenge the Spirit laid on his heart to give to his friends. A teaching might be towards an identified deficiency of understanding or may flow out of the studies individuals are making during the week on their own. Prophecy may correct the direction the congregation is going, may identify weaknesses and strengths among them, may warn them, or may give them hope and vision for the future. Some verses indicate that individuals may also bring songs of their choosing to the meetings of believers, with which to encourage each other.

Now that I’ve said those things, I do believe that there is a place for the lecture-style teaching we call sermons. I really enjoy Bible conferences, and am not opposed to worship concerts where the band has practiced and is intending to honor God. When I visit my friends’ churches, I usually view those services as conferences, and I look for the Spirit-driven gatherings elsewhere. At this stage of my life I’m not content with the small groups and Bible studies that have been getting me by. So I’m still looking, reading books and searching websites from people who are practicing what the Bible teaches about Church. I’m excited to see where that leads.

Some questions remain, stronger tensions between the familiar and the ideal: how is authority supposed to work in the church? Is it important? Is it a matter of exercising authority or of submitting to authority? How much should we submit? What shall Christians do for evangelism? Wouldn’t it be better to team up? But is it wrong to invite people in to hear the gospel, or should we go out to them? Are women to speak in the church meetings? If not, why on earth did Paul say so? – Just to prove I don’t think I know everything!

Proverbs 22:7, “Therich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.”

The Bible is fairly clear that debt is a bad idea.The Jews were allowed to loan money to each other, and even to take a deposit – but they could not charge interest.Only outsiders were to be a source of profit to the Jews.Proverbs teaches that giving to the poor is much better than lending to them; it is compared to lending to God, who will “repay” the generous man.

Proverbs 19:17, “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.”

Luke 6:35, “But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.”

With this in mind, I have chosen to be neither slave nor master, borrowing nor lending.I don’t have a credit card, bought my car with cash, and prepay my auto insurance every year.The most money I owe is paying my share of our family cell phone plan each month, and I try to never get even a day behind.As a result I have a no credit rating, but I defy an economy built on spending tomorrow’s dollar.Isn’t it rather foolish of them to base trust on the fact that people are NOT responsible enough to save money ahead of time?

I don’t want to lend money, either.But living in modern America, to have any sort of normal life one must have a bank.Banks are institutions that take my money and your money and loan it to others in order to profit from the interest.The banking crisis of 2008 was precipitated by a ratio of loans to interest received that was too disproportionate to maintain a profit.The expenses of banks were not being paid by the interest on loans because too many loans were “bad.”Payments were not being made.Banks can’t reinvest foreclosed property immediately.Their funds became tied up, invested in non-liquid assets.And this is not a bad thing except that they had been too greedy, and left insufficient cash in hand to meet the demands of their customers.Some of their customers were the depositors, some the borrowers (small businesses were a big concern; apparently they function on future dollars almost exclusively), and many bank clients are paradoxically both.That this is bad for the economy as a whole is becoming more and more evident.

The practice of profiting from loans (associated with shady characters for centuries) to people in need is hurting individuals as well.Obviously to give an interest-free loan, or even a “hand up” gift in hard times would be much preferable financially.Traditionally this would be done relationally, by capable friends who would be able to assess the legitimacy of the need and the efficacy of the gift.To those not in need loans ought to be less available.Politically and economically the Levitical law on charging interest to foreigners corresponded to the idea of duties (benefiting the people directly, rather than the government).To participate in the God -directed and –blessed economy of Israel, a Gentile could borrow money from a Jew, but the Jew was allowed to charge him for this privilege, taking the form of interest.(This is as covered in the law; it is plausible that Jews could charge other things like duties or rent for market space.)I suppose that business loans resemble this category, but it is not sound business to rely so heavily on borrowed cash.

Here is where I would like to introduce the concept of investment.What is commonly considered investment today is more accurately called “speculation.”It is a risk, calculated or wild – a gamble.Either a bank is taking a risk on a loan, betting that the interest yield will be profitable and that the debtor will not take off with the money; or an individual or institution is throwing money into stocks hoping the value of the stocks will go up, and that they can sell at a higher price in the future.Investment is different.Investment relies on dividends for profit.Dividends are a share of the profits less than the total profits divided by all the “shares” of stockholders, so that some of the profits may be reinvested in the company for continuing productivity, like farmers not selling all of their produce, but saving some for seed and planting a portion of it the next season.Sound investing is to give (as in not expecting or requiring the money to be returned) a sum to a company that one believes will be making profits long enough that dividends will meet or exceed the amount of the investment.This happens over time.

Another type of investment is in assets, which ought to appreciate through supply and demand.This property ought to have inherent worth by reason of usefulness.A few common kinds of investment are land, houses, and gold.A person may also invest in a service, like education, which makes his skills greater and his labor more valuable.Investing this way does not always require the sale of the investment to profit.There can be “dividends” on this as well: rent money from rental property, use of a house or farmland, or application of the skills acquired through education.

I understand how the sale of stock arose, and how useful it is.I’m not opposed to that being an option.It should not, however, be the common practice of banks, investment companies, or sound long-term investors.There would be two reasons to sell stock: 1) You can no longer afford the investment.Liquidity is more essential to you than long-term profit.2) Your share in the company is losing value in a way that makes you think that no profit will ever proceed from it again.In this instance, to sell is to take advantage of another investor, profiting from selling them an asset worth nothing.Like loaning money or running a casino, it is preying on the risky ambitions of foolish men.It ought to be legal in a free market, but it is not moral.

All this to say that the ideal bank for me would be one that does not loan money, nor speculate in stocks.Picture a community of people.Many of them have money to spare, which they wish to store in a safe but accessible location.They get together and store their money in a bank.This bank is managed by a man who guards their cash and processes transactions: deposits, withdrawals, checks, debit cards, transfers.To pay for his services, the depositors allow him to use a portion of the total money in the bank to invest.At least a portion of the dividends, if not all of them, would pay for the building, the administrative fees, and the banker’s salary.The investments ought to be diverse, and published to the depositors for review.If there was sufficient concern that the investments were imprudent, the depositors could attempt to advise their banker or transfer their money to a more trusted banker.Depositors would understand that not all of their money would necessarily be available for withdrawal or transfer at once, but at a contractual set period after such a request is made.As always, more deposits are an insurance against a misjudged investment or a large withdrawal.If the investments are consistently successful enough, a bank may offer its own dividends to all of its clients, or to those whose deposits are large enough (this is done today through “interest-bearing” checking accounts).

This is slightly simplified.A larger bank would obviously employ more than one investment manager, for example.I don’t know all the laws involved. Many banks, I believe, were begun by one wealthy man (or a few partners) who put up his own money to ensure both initial liquidity and sufficient funds to participate in the market at a profitable level.In fact the whole idea is similar to a trust, in which multiple parties get together in order to make investments too large for their individual capital.(If I wanted to invest in gold, I am pretty sure the smallest portions I can buy in a portfolio situation are ounces, so if I don’t have enough extra cash to buy one ounce, I cannot invest in gold.But if my brother and I pool our investment money, we could afford the ounce and participate in that market.)Trusts are strictly regulated by contracts defining shares, inheritance, selling out, and management.

I don’t think owning stock in a company should be restricted to corporations or investment firms or banks, nor should it take an expert to understand the buying and selling of stocks.There is a place for the investment firm that lets investors manage their own portfolios as well as for an investment bank such as the one I describe.If a client is benefiting from the bank-like services of an investment firm, it is fair enough to let those employed by that company control the investments made, even if in the form of creating a list of acceptable investments or advising on investments (veto power), for the security of their business and thus the continued availability of the demanded services.

My idea here is not brand new.Think of what banks are called.You can still find some today called such and such “bank and trust,” or “investment bank.”I want a bank that does not loan money, and one that does not speculate in stocks.Do you know of any?

I asked a while back what was the truest expression of love. Fiction and stories have always served to teach me. They make me think, and ponder scenarios beyond my experience. When I don’t have a book that perfectly suits a question I’m considering, I (sometimes consciously) devise a story of my own. That is the setting for the question I asked.

My initial scenario was a man and woman in love under oppressive circumstances who had several options: 1. Part and give each other up. 2. Part promising to be faithfully and exclusively devoted to one another despite separation. 3. Marry and face permanent endangerment or death as a result. So the questions are: 1. Is it better to sacrifice and let each other possibly find love elsewhere? 2. Is it more faithful to the feelings and nature of love to continue feeling for each other when all chance of enactment is past? 3. Is consummation so important to love that you would risk each other?

Suppose you’re in A Walk to Remember. Do you marry when your marriage is guaranteed to be short-lived? What if you’re in Pirates of the Caribbean? Do you marry if you know (which was, I allow, not the case in the movie) that the relationship will consist of one day in 3652? You’re a mother in Nazi Germany who has a chance of sending her children away to safety, but she’ll never see them again. (supplied by my mom): Or should missionary parents endanger their kids by discipling them at home or protect them by sending them to boarding school? Then again, is life and safety more important than a relationship with your parents?

Michael Card wrote “God’s only way is to give and to die.” I wasn’t only asking about romantic love. But I confess I’ve always got that under consideration, being interested in the subject. Seriously, I can see the usefulness of reading all the relationship books. Aside from personal application, I believe such subjects are fundamental points in the development of one’s relationship with God and others. Plus it’s Valentine’s Day, so I have an excuse – for today.

Gratification is doing whatever the feelings of love motivate you to do in a moment. This promises the most instant satisfaction, but it might be deceptive. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve felt like hugging someone and decided I couldn’t, or shouldn’t, or more deeply would rather not.

Consumation would be a more long-term, planned and waited for climax of a relationship. It doesn’t necessarily indicate commitment, but it is a fulfillment of something hoped and worked for. What is the consummate activity of friendship, or of parenting? For some friends it might be meeting, or reading journals or going on a trip together. In Butterfly Kisses, Bob Carlisle indicates that the peak of parenting is when his daughter is given away in marriage. Consumation might be understood as the “truest expression of love” by definition. It might be too specific, though. Let’s keep exploring.

Commitment is, in this case, synonymous with faithfulness and loyalty. True love inspires commitment. There’s no greater gift to offer a person than your eternal devotion. Then again, what if the love is unrequited? What if there is eternal separation to match the eternal commitment? Then the commitment doesn’t mean anything.

Sacrifice. Obviously there are different levels of sacrifice. A guy who sees a romantic comedy instead of the latest Will Smith alien movie is being sacrificial (generally speaking), but that is not the truest expression of love. Maybe a bunch of little things all added together are the kind of sacrifice I mean. There isn’t opportunity for each of us to die for another to demonstrate our love. Romans 12:1 talks about being a living sacrifice, which is totally giving one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength to the purposes and good of another. Or maybe sacrifice is the answer in some instances and not others.

As I think about this, I remember love languages. I don’t even know what they all are. There is giving and touch, probably words, and maybe service. I’m still missing one. Anyway, this side of the argument points out that the motive is important, not the expression.

My mom kept saying “it depends” when I asked her this question. I wasn’t asking what was right or wrong, or the choice that should be made in a given circumstance. Perhaps my point is to show how those things can conflict with expressing love. Am I wrong? After all, God is love. Ought love to be the ultimate consideration? When faced with a choice between improving a relationship and improving the other person (making them good-er) in your relationship, which claim is superior?

I could invite a friend to ice cream because I want to build our relationship, and spending time is a good way to brick our relationship. Or it could be because I know they like ice cream and I want to brick them. Or I could be bricking myself because I like ice cream. So which is more important?Which is love?

There I go again.I can’t blog without asking questions.But to answer my original survey, if I were taking a test, I’d pick sacrifice.I can refute the others (to my own satisfaction, but I can’t necessarily prove my case).

– Jim Morrison as quoted in the November/December edition of the new Victoria Magazine

A dime store Christmas museum display about which the article was written contains ornaments, candles, Santas, toys, tinsel, ribbons, and lights. All this began over a hundred years ago. I’m holding Frank Woolworth personally responsible for all the Christmas junk overflowing every garage sale. Jim Morrison, curator of the National Christmas Center, credits Woolworth with merely meeting a demand already existent in the culture. The consumer-driven Christmas is not new.

In fact, it has sufficiently come of age to be opposed, rejected, and replaced by many people who are dissatisfied for one reason or another with the insistent “Buy, buy, buy!” chanted over the sweet chime of silver bells each December. Some recognize that a country built on debt is in serious trouble, and that luxury on credit is multiplying the disaster. Others want Christmas to be innocent and sentimental, and are unhappy that Santa is in PG-13 movies, advertising addictive substances, and hawking whosever product the companies want him to. There are the Christians who notice, while standing in lines of epic length wrapping around the department store, that there is precious little about Jesus. Angels and stars are the most religious articles with which most stores are comfortable. If Jesus is recognized, He is considered just another icon to be marketed. Finally there are families who are sick of kids seeing the world as a vending machine. They want to emphasize other values.

A friend from church discovered Samaritan’s Purse Gift Catologs this year. They contain suggested gifts for needy children and families around the world. Give a goat to a community, a week of food to a baby, a month of care to an orphan. At Christmas especially I like to give to charities. If you’re interested in spreading the good news of Jesus’ birth around the world, consider letting the missionaries from Samaritan’s Purse deliver a gift in your name, and share about Jesus at the same time.

Or you can do what my friend did, and send the gift in the name of someone on your Christmas list. Check off grandma and aunt Susie, your boss, and your Sunday school teacher by sending gifts in their honor. Let them know what you donated and why. What do you get for the person who already has it all? Look at the catalog to find out.

A documentary filmmaker creatively spun his category by touring the country with a gospel choir warning against the shopocalypse, and asking What Would Jesus Buy? His presentation can be a little extreme, but the discontent with our materialistic Christmas comes through loud and clear. Their website also has a suggested list of alternative gifts.

One of my good friends and I are in the same boat this Christmas: we can’t decide what to put on our own Christmas lists, let alone what to get for our friends and family. For us there is no conscious rebellion against the gifting tradition; we’re just out of ideas. Don’t worry. We are brainstorming.

Credit for this post goes to my friends, because yet another one commented on this blog to inform me of a group called Advent Conspiracy which is trying to replace consumption with compassion this Christmas. Their website has information on: what not to do, how not to do it, why not to do it, what to do instead, how to spend instead (supposing you actually had extra cash for Christmas, and weren’t going to simply expand your debt to buy smiles). I haven’t studied the theology of this group (or of the documentary team); they’re a good resource to challenge you to think about how you celebrate Christmas.

If you have already thought about how to center your Christmas on Jesus instead of property, what are your ideas? Do you know any other programs or resources we can use? Leave a comment. Let us know.

Thank you, all of my friends who are willing to make me think about radical Christian living, embracing sacrifice, and true compassionate giving.